IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------------------ x In re: ) ) COLLINS & AIKMAN

CORPORATION, et al. ) ) Debtors. ) ) ) ------------------------------------------------------------------ x

Chapter 11 Case No 05-55927-R Honorable Steven W. Rhodes Jointly Administered Large Bankruptcy Case

LIMITED OBJECTION TO MOTION TO MODIFY MEDIATION ORDER Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP (Honigman), for its Limited Objection To Motion To Modify Mediation Order, state: 1. On October 16, 2007 this Court held a hearing on a proposed order regarding mediation for a procedure for mediation of the adversary proceedings seeking recoveries of preferences under 11 U.S.C. 547(b). 2. Honigman appeared at the October 16, 2007 hearing on behalf of the various adversary proceeding defendants the firm represents. 3. On October 19, 2007, the Court issued its Order Regarding Mediation (the Mediation Order) (Docket 8376). 4. Louis P. Rochkind, one of the mediators appointed by the Order Regarding Mediation, has moved to modify the Mediation Order (Docket 8412) in several respects. 5. In particular, he seeks to modify Paragraph 16 of the Mediation Order to provide a fixed daily fee to the mediator of $6,000 per day (for Detroit based mediators), but does not specify how the fee would be allocated and charged to defendants.

0W[;'+4

0555927071120000000000003

#I

6. The proposal could result in an excessive and unfair charge on a defendant without many dollars at issue, raising the opportunity for coerced settlements. It appears the charges to defendants for the mediator thus would depend on how many mediations the mediator chose to schedule in a particular day. Moreover, notwithstanding however many mediations were

originally scheduled for a particular day, the charge would increase for nonsettling defendants to ensure the mediator obtained the specified fee. Thus, there is a real risk that a Track I or Track II defendant could be charged as much as $3,000 to mediate, either because only one mediation was scheduled for the day, or because the other adversary proceedings initially scheduled to be mediated that day settled or were rescheduled. Moreover, Paragraph 16 of the Mediation Order as it presently stands is unclear how the fees are fixed where there are multiple parties named in an adversary proceeding. Was it intended each side would pay the fee no matter how many plaintiffs or defendants are named? Moreover, where multiple defendants are named, but the defendants are merely divisions or misnomers of another defendant only one fee should be paid collectively by the defendants. (a) One example, is Collins & Aikman Corporation et al. v. SET et al, Adv. Pro. No. 07-05544, in which there are three named plaintiffs, and two named defendants, SET and SET Enterprises, Inc. There is no entity SET, it is apparently a misnomer for SET Enterprises, Inc.; Another example is Collins & Aikman Corporation et al. v. Allied Waste Services et al., Adv. Pro. No. 07-04812, where there are nine named plaintiffs and eight named defendants, although the name of the defendants are named according to their proper corporate name.

(b)

WHEREFORE, Honigman requests that this Court modify the Mediation Order so that the mediation fees are fixed as a set amount per side (as opposed to per party), which amount will not change based on scheduling vagaries, and for such other relief as is proper and just. Respectfully submitted, 2

HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP

By:

/s/ Judy B. Calton Judy B. Calton (P38733) 2290 First National Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: 313-465-7344 Fax: 313-465-7345 jcalton@honigman.com Dated: November 20, 2007

DETROIT.2872442.1